dmaziuk@bmrb.wisc.edu
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 14:05:50 -0500
We have a couple of obsolete drives sitting on the shelf in a server room. At this point
a) I don't know what interface they have (some flavour of scsi I expect) but
I'm certain we don't have a computer with that kind of interface card and
b) I am fairly certain the lubricants have solidified and rubber belts, if
any, will either crack and turn into black dust, or ooze into a sticky
black goo, the moment one tries to use them.
In theory you could retain the hardware indefinitely, but you have to choose that hardware very carefully first.
gabe@gabegold.com
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 11:29:23 -0400
Hardware deteriorates (bearings, lubrication, plastics, connections, etc.).
I wouldn't trust a ten-year old drive to reliably spin up, let alone one
reaching back far further to read irreplaceable/historical archive
tapes. Since it'll be hard to acquire spare parts, how many copies of each
data generation's hardware would be needed? Then there's needing people
experienced in servicing them, plus manuals and schematics. And needing
computers capable of connecting to and driving them. And, of course, tapes
themselves deteriorate too.
Brian.Inglis@systematicsw.ab.ca
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:31:38 -0600
> It most certainly does *not* mean that. It might mean that film
> archivists must retain hardware capable of reading the obsolescent
> tapes.
In order to do that, film archivists must have the capability to: archive the tapes in readable condition; maintain hardware and their interfaces, and spares for those; software to use those interfaces; documentation and media for the hardware, software, operation, and maintenance; and retain staff able to use and maintain those; to read the tapes, recover data going bad, and write the contents to new media.
A rather larger set of requirements and risks to manage. The biggest risk is probably retention of tech staff interested in and capable of maintaining obsolescent hardware and software for years.
Organizations may weight the risks and costs differently to choose their most effective approach.
jeffj@panix.com
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 02:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
I'd say it goes both ways.
Libraries are digitizing cylinder recordings to make them available, but they keep the original recordings, particularly as new developments allow for more faithful recreation of the sound. But there's a video of a fellow holding a priceless cylinder recording that shatters. Multiple copies on various media guard against that, particularly if at various locations.
I'm keeping my LPs because I have turntables, but they're useful only to folks with turntables.
But magtape, 8" floppy disks, QIC tapes and other computer media are problematic because few drives are available to read them. Even drives in storage self-destruct as rubber parts either dry up and crack, or turn to chewing-gum. So then the problem becomes preserving the drives to preserve the ability to read archives, vs. copying up to current media readable by just about anyone.
[Overlapping comments from Erling Kristiansen. PGN]